get_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields (address, total, unread), which matters because no output schema exists. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or whether counts are scoped to inbox only vs all folders — the unread count is tied to 'inbox' but 'total messages' scope is ambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return values and followed by the use case. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape and the reason to call it. A slight gap remains around what 'total messages' spans (inbox only, or all folders) versus the explicitly inbox-scoped unread count.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact values returned: connected address, total messages, unread count. This is clearly distinct from every sibling, which are all mail/draft/label mutation or retrieval tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sentence 'Use it to confirm which account is connected' gives a concrete triggering scenario. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but no sibling overlaps meaningfully (no other account/session tool exists).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.